Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic poetry topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry is part of WikiProject Poetry, a WikiProject related to Poetry.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Assessment

Would the members of this project be interested in having the project banner also include assessment parameters? If so, please indicate as much to me and I can add them. Thank you. John Carter 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP: Poetry activity

I just wanted to see if people are still active in this Project. I'm not sure who founded it or who maintains the main Project page. It's worth an update. Is anyone fully active here? Would anyone like to help revive this project? Anyone? <taps screen> --Midnightdreary 13:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still here, but I tend to do my own thing, and work in different areas (poetry, novels, music, medicine, etc.) rather than concentrate on any one subject. My last poetry project was The Lais of Marie de France, which was eventually filled out by another editor whom I haven't yet met. --Kyoko 14:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually very impressed by the sudden burst of activity on the Project page and some attempts at cleaning up the template. I'm wondering if it's worth checking the list of participants and seeing if there are people that are no longer active on Wikipedia at all? --Midnightdreary 03:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There have definitely been some great improvements in the project in the last several days. I am thinking we should consider following some of the standards set by the powerhouse WikiProject Novels. For one thing, I love their template of info: Template:WPNOVELS. Can we incorporate something similar? I might start working on it myself. I think we have some of this information already (i.e. article structure) but I'd love to help build and develop further. --Midnightdreary 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, would people think it's worth having a poetry infobox? --Midnightdreary 01:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been actively editing/managing most of the Lists of . . . poets, on a regular monthly basis. Glad to see some more activity and am doing what I can. WayneRay 17:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

[edit] Assessment

The banner is now equipped for assessment. This should at least give those editors who are still active an idea of how comparatively good or not-so-good the various articles this project deals with are. John Carter 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Literature proposal

There is a proposal up for a project focusing on general, basic literature articles here. Please add your name if you are interested. Thanks, Wrad 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of List articles / Project activity

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. All those articles on that list should probably be a part of this topic - it might help spur some interest in this project (which seems to be waning). --Midnightdreary 19:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd be interested in helping revive the project. What should we do about it? Run a roll call? Wrad 19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's a great idea. We can contact those on the list of participants on their talk page and see who responds. Personally, I'd rather have a very short list of moderately to highly active members then see a huge list of inactives. We should also consider trying to make the project page look a little more like other projects, including providing suggested article formats, etc. I'd even suggest the first-ever poetry infobox. I definitely want to be a part of that. -Midnightdreary 20:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I basically copied the Novels template to Template:Infobox Poem. It clearly needs some work, but the structure is there. John Carter 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Let's get the roll call started first. Maybe give two weeks to respond? Wrad 21:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
It would also help to have the project banner equipped for assessments. However, it would appear that to do that we would have to agree on what else the banner would include. John Carter 21:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking that as well. Wrad 21:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think giving two weeks is very generous - even 10 days would be suitable. I think the project banner is fairly straightforward if we keep it simple; I suggest taking the "Current projects" portion out (and possibly moving onto the project page). By the way, I had tried some experimenting on making a sort of "navbox" for the project page if you want to take a look: User:Midnightdreary/test. It's pretty much stolen from the Novels project (which, if we think we're too weak, we could consider reinventing as a Task Force under them... just a suggestion). --Midnightdreary 21:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There's also a new proposed "Literature" project which could take this group on as a task force, if it were to become active. John Carter 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The good news is that there are at least three interested parties interested in being active participants. :) --Midnightdreary 21:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the deadline for responding is more to make sure people respond someday, so maybe 10 days is plenty. It's not like they can't join if they miss the deadline, just to make sure they don't lolligag around. Wrad 21:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've noted at least one other project has indicated that active members should add an * before their names on the membership list. Maybe that would be the way to go here as well. John Carter 22:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to start handing out invites. I'll start at the top. If anyone wants to start at the bottom and meet in the middle, fine by me. Wrad 00:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you got to them all already - nicely done! It seems we're already weeding down the list a bit. --Midnightdreary 01:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, there were some sockpuppets, someone who had left wikipedia, and some non-existent users. Seemed as though some people were adding the names of random poets to the list, like they thought they were members or something. Weird. Wrad 01:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I like the template MD made for the side of the page. The infobox will be best tested when placed in an article and filled out. Then we'll see what's missing. Also, I think talk page banners should carry assessment and importance information. This will help us prioritize and see where we stand. Wrad 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's try out the infobox on two very different poems, say "Jabberwocky" and a Shakespearean sonnet. We should definitely get that assessment/importance stuff, too - I think it's been attempted but failed. Not sure what happened. --Midnightdreary 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment / Importance Banner

I experimented but not sure it worked. Template:WPPoetry. It seems like when it's on a talk page, it shows all the extra info that's not supposed to be seen. I'm not going to abandon it yet, but if someone who knows more about this kind of mark-up wants to jump in, go for it. --Midnightdreary 15:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Wrad 15:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's in action over at Talk:The Raven. We should really pull the current projects line out though. --Midnightdreary 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. At least temporarily. Maybe later on we'll add it back. Wrad 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the "Poetry Templates" category is being added to all pages w/ this template. How do we fix that? Wrad 16:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll work on that. I think the main bone of contention might be the inclusion of the existing collaboration and stubs info. If they could be included in a link or a "additional info" tab, that'd make the size a lot less cumbersome. John Carter 16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it's working great! I've gone through and assessed a couple handfuls of articles and they all seem to be functioning fine. Nicely done! --Midnightdreary 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

[edit] Infobox

Note: there's an old proposed poetry infobox here: Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Poetry --Midnightdreary 15:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPPOETRY Template

I've moved the template for the main project page to its own page: Template:WPPOETRY. Feel free to experiment, update, play with colors, etc. --Midnightdreary 15:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Activity renewed!

I've gone ahead and removed the inactive members - I think plenty of time has gone by. It looks like we have a solid list of confirmed active members, however, and that's definitely a good thing! We also seem to have modernized the project to better keep up with what generally seems to be happening in Wikiprojects. What else do we need from here? Someone had suggested bringing back the collaboration of the month? Perhaps we could build a list of (just a couple) articles on individual poems, individual poets, and poetry terms or movements that we can consider top priority until they all receive at least A-Class status (as deemed by us). Thoughts? --Midnightdreary (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How about Sonnet? Wrad (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I would support that. It seems to be in decent shape but lacks in-line citations. Should we pick about three articles for now, one from each "category"? If so, I wanna suggest "The Road Not Taken" for the poem or possibly "Dover Beach" which has a couple very active editors that could help out. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Another suggestion is to put some of the really old poetry articles that were listed as Featured Articles back in, like, 2004, up for WP:FARC. I know it's sort of self-defeating, but articles like alliterative verse (listed in 2003) just aren't up to FA quality. --Midnightdreary 13:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B. R. Dionysius

Could someone possibly check the notability (or lack thereof of:)) of this article and any linking to it for me? It was written by a promotional account, with the same name as his small publisher.Merkinsmum 00:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look notable enough to me. I'd make the argument that if he was notable enough, his publisher wouldn't have to write a Wikipedia article for him. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry related article up for Featured Article

FYI: Edgar Allan Poe is a current candidate for featured article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Allpoetry.com

Allpoetry.com (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-15) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Including full poems

I swear, I ran across a policy somewhere regarding the use of the full text of (copyright expired) poems in their articles. I thought the guideline said, vaguely, that small poems could be included and long ones shouldn't. The policy linked in our navigation box on the project page just says that if it's copyright-free, use it. That seems too general to me: a poem like The Odyssey need not be included in full on its article. Does anyone know a of a more complete Wiki-policy? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're the main ones who would contribute such a policy anyway. I'd say copyright-free is good, but not at the expense of article quality. There's no way I'm going to post the entire Gawain poem at SGGK. Wrad (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Great example. I even would go so far as to suggest this project propose a policy addendum for WP:L&P. I mean, some poetry (Three Blind Mice) would be silly not to include in an article so there should be some distinction, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the rest of the article (Jabberwocky). I also sort of like what one editor recently did for The Raven. Actually, we might even create a template for including poems for others to follow. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that L&P page gives some pretty awful advice! Wrad (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Tamim Al Barghouti

Tamim Al Barghouti (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-17) Kept

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
update --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Clare Kirwan

Clare Kirwan (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-27) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article for deletion: 2River

2River at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2River (2nd nomination) (2007-12-25 –)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article for deletion: Abattoir Blossoms

Abattoir Blossoms : Dark Poems and Fiendish Delights at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abattoir Blossoms : Dark Poems and Fiendish Delights (2007-12-20 – 2007-12-26) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ode to Joy

I'm wondering if anyone can help me over at Ode to Joy. There's an editor -- whose reasoning I can't even follow -- who is insisting on making widespread and drastic changes to the article and the interpretation of the poem. I know very little about the poem; I only watch the article to keep language regarding Beethoven's Ninth from overtaking the article. You can see our "conversation" here. If anyone can make any sense out of it, I would greatly appreciate the assistance. —  MusicMaker5376 16:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, your best and strongest argument is always verifiability and reputable sources. If you've got it sourced, it's nigh-untouchable. If he/she doesn't, it's removable. Frankly, right now, he has the stronger case because he is using sources. Do you have your own that you can add? By the way, even if it's not the most strongly believed interpretation, a summary style note of it couldn't hurt, could it? Try to assume good faith, too! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look! I've been trying to explain to him that a section detailing what he has to say would welcome on the article, but he seems to be intent on changing the entire article to sidle with his interpretation -- even changing the title of the poem and the article! I'll be the first to admit that the article is sparse and relatively unsourced, but I don't think that adding sources that haven't been expounded upon since Beethoven's day is necessarily the answer. I'm trying to AGF, but he just keeps attacking me.... Like I said, this really isn't my forte; I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for sources for a modern interpretation that doesn't have anything to do with Beethoven. —  MusicMaker5376 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, this editor really just needs to know that this whole Wiki project is supposed to be a collaborative effort. I wish I had better advice here, but hang in there! --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, thank you. Thank you for throwing your hat in a very confusing ring. I have the feeling that the other editor is probably extremely well-versed when it comes to Schiller, and is probably using a less-than-native language. The entire thing began when I reverted his contributions to the article -- because they used an unnecessary amount of bold text and because they were extremely difficult to understand. He took this as evidence that I was attempting to suppress... something... and apparently thinks that I'm some sort of literary adversary. Hopefully a second voice -- whether or not it agrees with mine -- will bring this to an equitable conclusion. —  MusicMaker5376 20:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy in categories

There seems to be redundancy in the categories relating to poems and poetry. What is the difference supposed to be between:

The "poems" categories are in Cat:Poems by nationality under Cat:Literature by nationality, while the "poetry" categories are in Cat:Poetry by nation or language under Cat:Arts genres by country or nationality. I'm truly at a loss where I'm supposed to classify an article on an individual poem. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. That'll be fun to fix. Wrad (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, before it can be fixed, it has to be sorted out. Do we need both sets of categories? If not, which set do we keep? Should we take this straight to WP:CFD? —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to drop one set of categories. I prefer the "poetry" series. Poems by nationality could then be made a subtopic of Literature by nationality and renamed "Poetry by Nationality". Wrad (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
What about classifying poems by language? Then, for example, Cat:Irish poems would be for poems written in Irish, but not for poems written in English by poets from Ireland. While I like the idea of that in principle for some cases, it would also lead to a lot of confusing apparent redundancy: a poem written in French by an author from France would be in both Cat:French poems and Cat:French poetry and it wouldn't be immediately clear to the user why. Maybe rename them Cat:French-language poems and Cat:Poetry of France? —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Another good idea. Wrad (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The poem cats are subcats of the poetry categories, so I'd categorize an article on an American Poem, for example, under American Poems; if someone is looking for it under American Poetry, they should see the subcategory for poems. I was actually surprised at how many articles there are on individual poems. I'd keep both categories. On the other hand, the question of categorizing by language versus country versus both is vexatious - if we categorize all English language poems together, American, English, Indian and Nigerian will all be a mess. If we make national categories subcategories of language, we have trouble with multi-lingual countries. The idea of Poetry of France and French Language Poetry sounds good to me. I would discuss here and only bring to cfd after there is consensus. I have found discussions on Cfd to be more about battles among deletionist and inclusionist concepts of Wikipedia and less about an informed discussion of the substantive area being categorized.A Musing (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Not all of the poem cats are subcats of the poetry cats (see Cat:Irish poems and Cat:Irish poetry, for example), though I suppose they could be. And I should make it clear that the ones listed above are only those that occur redundantly. There are also several nationalities represented only in Cat:Foo poems but not Cat:Foo poetry, as well as several represented only in Cat:Bar poetry but not Cat:Bar poems. Those will have to be sorted out as well. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 07:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd argue for consistency in thinking of poems as a subcategory of poetry, since the poetry topic would include poets, schools, and other broader topics. A Musing (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Ferenc Gabriel Joachim

Ferenc Gabriel Joachim (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-29)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Revere's Ride

There's been a discussion regarding Longfellow's poem "Paul Revere's Ride". Somehow, the article became overburdened with information on the historic event rather than the poem. When I pointed out that the article is meant to focus on the poem (and the edit history of its earliest versions confirms this), the article was turned into a strange amalgamation of poetry and history. I still maintain that the article was meant to be (and therefore should be) about the poem, and the historical event should be either at Paul Revere or in a separate article. Any thoughts? --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding Modernist poetry

In the Portal:Arts/Things you can do, it's mentioned as an open, priority task to expand the article Modernist poetry. Its revision history has been slow. I would like to work on this -- and, especially as a WikiNewbie, I'd be delighted if other people would help.

The existing article is a 1-paragraph stub. The article has a "See also," several of whose references to national schools are themselves not even stubs but need to be created. It also cites two perhaps unnecessarily competing lists: List of modernist poets and List of English-language first and second generation modernist writers. Both of these lists are highly uncategorized and English-centric.

I've put an extensive note on its talk page with suggestions for expanding this article and the group of pages that surround it -- using the already-featured Modernist poetry in English as a model.

I've also started a user subpage to eventually hold the work-in-progress, although for now it only has the text of the existing article.

I would deeply appreciate any comments, suggestions, advice, warnings, or help with this program. William P. Coleman (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

First warning would be that Modernist poetry in English should be de-listed as a Featured Article as it really doesn't meet the criteria. So, be careful of using that as a model. Think of referencing as going hand-in-hand with expansion. That list of tasks from the visual arts is interesting - it hasn't been updated since December '06 for one - but it also is supposed to be only on visual arts. Go figure. Anyway, I'd also suggest that a "See also" that links to a nonexistent article is not particularly helpful. Best of luck, though. Some of the more general poetry-related articles are most in need of work. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think what I meant was that Modernist poetry in English, whatever its lack of inline references and however narrow its sources, has the type of material I'd like to see: what were those poets trying to do? The list of tasks isn't "visual arts" it's "arts" -- it's the main Arts Portal. I agree about linking to nonexistent articles: that's why I'd like to boldly create them.

Whatever you meant, please just be certain you are using oodles and oodles of in-line references! That's just a personal plea. (Sorry, the list of tasks, from the edit history, looked like it was originally intended for visual arts only). Boldly create whatever you like but I'd suggest it's best to have a few really good articles than a bunch of relatively weak articles. So, if you want my advice, focus on one and hammer away at it until it's close to B-Class then move on to the next. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Advice gratefully accepted. I've noticed that articles that lack inline references often (though not absolutely always) tend to wander off into digressive, unorganized, sophomoric messes. So, I'll scrupulously avoid that. Please notice that my changes to Poetics largely consist of restoring the inline references left by a previous editor and creating a new section based on a cited, inline reference. William P. Coleman (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poetics -- also figures of speech

I've expanded the stub for Poetics. Many of the sources I'm working with to improve Modernist poetry are deeply concerned with poetics, so I think I'll have material to keep upgrading Poetics.

In the course of doing that, I notice that there are semi-overlapping articles:

This has earlier been partially noticed on the talk pages.

I envision the Poetics article as complementary to those, but more theoretical. William P. Coleman (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Dickinson is up for Peer Review

In preparation for nominating Emily Dickinson, which is currently a GA, for FAC, I have listed it for a Peer Review. All comments and suggestions from those involved with this Wikiproject would be very much appreciated here. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Gawain and the Green Knight Peer Review

Aiming for FA. Awadewit is helping copyedit, but may need more help as we go. Wrad (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Is Just To Say

I have greatly expanded the article of William Carlos Williams' poem "This Is Just To Say." Could somebody on this WikiProject please give it a look over to make sure it conforms to Wikipedia standards? Thanks. Notecardforfree (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Such a great poem... and some great work has been done on this article. I left a substantial response on the article's talk page. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-poetry

I've had a weird idea simmering in my head for awhile. There are a lot of people on wikipedia who write poetry. I've run across several wiki-poems on my wiki-sojourn, and I've been thinking it might be a good idea to collect all these somewhere on our project space. I think it would be entertaining and unifying. I'd love to be able to see all of these poems in one place. Wrad (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I've seen this suggestion before. I have no particular feeling one way or the other (okay, I lean slightly on the "no" side) but I think you might get arguments similar to what Wikipedia is not. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh poo. Those arguments mostly just apply to mainspace. Maybe I'll start by just making it part of my userspace. It'll just be something like the deceased wikipedians page. Harmless, uncontroversial, yada, yada, yada. Wrad (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wonder if it would work on the poetry portal. It seems like a relatively appropriate place, and would certainly drive more traffic there. Plus, it would give us a real reason to better maintain the portal. --Midnightdreary (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walt Whitman nominated for GA

Just nominated Walt Whitman for good article. If anyone wants to drop by the page and give the writing a once-over for grammar, etc., I'd be much obliged. Oh, and Edgar Allan Poe recently passed as a featured article!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could I request an assessment of "For want of a nail"

I haven't found anyplace to formally request an assessment on the wikiproject poetry page anywhere - would someone please have look at For Want of a Nail (Proverb)‎ with a critical eye and give me some feedback? Also, if anyone knows how to set up disambiguation pages, please look at my request on the talk page of the article - Thanks in advance - Timmccloud (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New member welcomes?

I've been thinking about this off and on... We should consider having a new member welcome message we can add to user talk pages after they've signed up. It will help us make sure that people know the role of this project and that they remain willing participants rather than just names on a list. Any thoughts? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Wrad (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pushpa Vilapam at AfD

Pushpa Vilapam, an article about a poem in the Telugu language, has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pushpa Vilapam --Eastmain (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Degare

I've created an article for Sir Degarè as part of a pretty small selection of Breton lais currently featured. Feedback would be appreciated as would information from sources that I can be sure are not infringing any copyright. Thanks. Kalindoscopy (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Turns out it does. I've got to delete everything except the intro... what is wikipedia policy when it comes to deleting vast chunks out of articles? And will Sir Degare become... a stub? golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what the problem is here. There's a copyright issue? On what, the images? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
the image was found in the commons and doesn't really relate to the text (apart from being somewhat contemporary and 'courtly' in subject). But all the text beneath the small intro is copyrighted. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article, you mean? Why would you be using copyrighted text? You should re-write in your own words using summary style and be sure to include in-line citations. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I was assured I'd be allowed to use it but got a note last week telling me this wasn't the case after all. I'll attempt a re-write. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You should anyway. Even if granted permission, any information put on Wikipedia is subject to the GNU free license - meaning they're essentially releasing their copyright entirely, not just for Wikipedia use. Good luck continuing to improve the article! --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Gawain and the Green Knight FAC

This article is up for FA status, so chip in if you can. Wrad (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] comparison of wikipedia with New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics

  • A recent comparison of wikipedia's topical coverage with that of print encylopedias (Alexander Halavais & Derek Lackaff (2008) 'An Analysis of Topical Coverage of Wikipedia', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2) , 429–440) has compared wikipedia's coverage with that of the New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Dsp13 (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Years in poetry pages

I'm going to begin working on these pages. To see an example of how I want the pages to look, see 1935 in poetry. Note that 1935 in literature contains a link to the poetry page. This is how it should be, no more, no less. I also added a new navbox to the page. I find the navbox simpler and easier to add than the old one (I will create a table page). If there are no objections to using the new navbox, I'll have a bot switch all the year in poetry pages to it.

If there are any objections to this format, please post them here. Psychless 22:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've come up with a style guide of sorts. You can view it here. I will make sure 1935 in literature adheres to the proposed standards tomorrow, so someone can have an example. Psychless 05:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long poem

Just to let everyone know that there is quite a bit of good constructive activity at Long poem. The editors are new and could use some experienced Wikipedian help. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Please see Romantic poetry#Update Needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidate

Rufus Wilmot Griswold, part of this project and currently at GA, is currently up for Featured Article review. Any help anyone can offer would be greatly appreciated. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Follain

I tagged this article with your project. Feel free to assess. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feminine rhymes vs. multisyllabic rhymes

It has been proposed to merge the article Multisyllabic rhymes into Feminine rhyme. The topic seems to be somewhat controversial; perhaps someone with experience in the topic can weigh in. Please leave your comments at Talk:Feminine rhyme#Merge? . Many thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare's Sonnets

Hello. I've undertaken a project to improve and standardize the pages on each of Shakespeare's sonnets. If anyone has comments or suggestions, please discuss them here or on my talk page. Thanks! Olaf Davis | Talk 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italics and Inverted Commas in titles of poems

The basic question is: when a poem includes inverted commas or italics in its name (when published) should these be retained in Wiki?
I've been looking in MoS and can't find a definite answer. According to MoS all non-long poems should be in "double inverted commas". The problem is that in the Faber & Faber editions of Philip Larkin's Collected Poems those poems to which Larkin gave no title are always referred by their their opening lines, which are presented in ‘single inverted commas’ in the indexes, in the contents pages and as headers to the poems themselves. This is causing us problems while sorting out List of poems by Philip Larkin. Similarly, some of his poems include italics in their title. Hope I've been slightly clearer than mud almost-instinct 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are the Faber pubs. from England? British convention is usually squotes, where American convention is quotes. Thus, I think it would be fair to convert from squotes to quotes. Likewise, German convention is to have the opening quotation indicators be commas at the bottom, and I think it fair and appropriate to convet these to quotes.
Kdammers (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that rationale holds up. The conversion from German standards to English standards is different than the conversion of England-English standards to American-English standards—this isn't American Wikipedia. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
1) My point about the German was an addition, not a justification.

2)I realize this isn't an American Wik, but it seems we need some consistency. IF it is more desirable to be consistent from article to article than with externals, then we should convert (either from squote to quote or the other way, depending on ?consensus). If we DON'T convert, won't there be mis-understanding by people reading the Larkin article? I guess an alternative is to do what we do with spelling (ou etc. in GB material and o etc. in US). But, again, would this cause mis-undertanding?Kdammers (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Larkin

The entry on Larkin has recently been expanded and tidied up, with a more solid factual basis. What it is missing is good reporting of his poetry's reception history (especially immediately following publication) Specialist help would be appreciated! Thank you almost-instinct 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] La Fábula de Polifemo y Galatea

Greeting WPPoetry! La Fábula de Polifemo y Galatea is a new article by a new editor, believe it or not. I wonder if someone here would like to polish the article and/or show User:Heathjm the ropes. Melchoir (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Found poetry

Hey, I just found an article that I'm interested in improving, but feel like I can't because I don't know enough about the subject. The article is found poetry, and I was wondering if anyone here would be interesting in contributing. --Justpassin (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)